I'm a co-founder of NorthBridge Energy Partners, LLC., a consulting firm that helps companies connect assets to power grids. I'm also a former Senior VP of Energy Technology Services for Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., and have 20+ years of experience in the energy industry. I've written for the Boston Business Journal, Mass High Tech and several other online industry publications. I have a B.A. from Williams College and a Masters from Tufts University’s Fletcher School.

The EWEA report notes that offshore wind has been one of the fastest growing maritime industries in Europe, but continued growth will require moving into deeper water – that is, water depths greater than 50 meters. The report also highlighted the fact that while the resource is huge – deep water wind from the North Sea alone has the potential to supply European markets “four times over” – many technological, economic, and political hurdles must be overcome. The political issues cited include the need for a commitment to long-term renewable energy targets, a clear legislative framework and cohesive European industrial strategy, simplified permitting processes, increased public support for R&D, stronger collaboration between players, new standards for floating wind systems and access to financing. A host of technical recommendations were offered up, while economic recommendations focused on training, port adequacy, and development of self-installing systems to minimize installation costs.

Image: blog cleanenergy.org

EWEA forecasts that by 2020, they could see up to 40 GW of offshore wind in European waters “provided that the right framework conditions are in place.” However, here’s the rub: Getting the technology and industrial policies right is only one piece of the puzzle, and will ultimately not be the limiting factor. The real problems are going to be the challenge of integrating a significant level of fluctuating wind energy into the electric grid, getting costs low enough for the resource to be attractive, and setting the pricing policies right so that investors gain the necessary confidence to proceed.

Integration of high levels of wind can be done, but you need the right pre-conditions. Denmark, by far the leader in the area of wind development and integration, has over 25% of it energy coming from wind turbines with an eventual goal of 50%. However, it can only integrate its massive wind resources because it has access to storage in the form of the hydroelectric resources which sit behind Vattenfall’s dams in neighboring Sweden. When the wind power is in excess of Denmark’s needs, it exports to Sweden through strong interconnecting lines. Vattenfall then flows less water through its dams, which essentially function as a giant battery. On calmer days, when Denmark needs the power, the electricity flows in the other direction. So far, the Danish market has proceeded relatively smoothly, but the New York Times notes that Danish consumers already pay more for electricity than the average European. Integrating high levels of offshore wind into the rest of Europe (which does not have large hydro resources) will pose some challenges.

Germany has also been aggressively pursuing the wind resource, and pushing offshore. However, the experience in Germany has been somewhat more turbulent and has recently exposed some significant problems. According to the 7/29 issue of Der Spiegel, Germany started with the goal of locating its turbines further from the coast to avoid marring the view. Escalating costs (driven in part by the technical challenges and price tag of the required solutions) drove up electricity prices, which resulted in a political discussion on setting potential price caps for wind. Though these caps were ultimately not approved, the specter of a deteriorating price regime spooked investors, and the winds for offshore energy developers suddenly became very chilly indeed.

Der Spiegel notes that turbine manufacturers were almost immediately affected, laying off employees who were recruited just a few months prior. Siag Nordseewerke has filed for bankruptcy, and others may follow suit. Although a number of offshore farms are still being built (based on the earlier momentum), no new follow-up contracts are being signed.

The economic fallout appears to be spreading: The $165 Cuxhaven port facility – reinforced to handle the loading of massive turbine foundations onto ships – is now idle. Austrian construction company StrabagStrabag recently closed its Cuxhaven office. Other companies only have a forward view to production through the end of the year. Bremerhaven and other ports are seeing slowdowns as well. Meanwhile, the talent base and expertise built up over the past years has begun to dissipate, and will take time to rebuild if the offshore wind ever regains its footing.

Europe may indeed have the offshore wind resources to power the continent. But it must be very cautious about how the entire process is structured and moves forward. It will need to spend a good deal of time focusing on both the pricing subsidies and ensuring sufficient capability to integrate wind energy into existing power markets. The experience of Germany is a cautionary tale for the rest of Europe as it steps out to further develop its offshore resource. It’s a lesson the U.S. offshore enthusiasts should watch closely as well.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

That may well be the case. Solar hard costs have fallen hugely in the past two or three years, and there are still so many avenues available for paring costs further. Soft costs will be one major target. The DOE has a goal of $1.50 or less per watt installed in five years. If they get even partially there, it’s a huge win. Plus, especially with rooftop, it pays to have production at the local level.

I disagree. As the author pointed out “The real problems are going to be the challenge of integrating a significant level of fluctuating wind energy into the electric grid,” Solar suffers the same weakness. Any talk of energy storage systems to charge to alleviate the problem only add to cost of an already expensive alternative energy.

Thanks for chiming in. I agree with you completely, if you take today’s situation as a snapshot and assume no progress with respect to technology or cost. But companies like Solar City are already working on a combined panel/storage system (they plan to use EV batteries from Tesla). As EVs take hold, storage costs will fall. A decade from now, we may be looking at an entirely different picture. Again – I appreciate the readership and the comment.

We could go all over the place with this one, so I won’t…it might be worth looking at some basic stats around literacy, expected lifespan, crime and some other key indicators. They do get something for the money they pay in.

I would say that a more nuanced view is probably worth considering. You are right in that the subsidy levels for wind and solar were not thought through as well as they should have been, in many markets – not just Germany (have a look at Spain as Exhibit B). However, if long-term, we get to a point where a good portion of our fuel source is free, and inexhaustible, some of the difficulty getting there with renewables will have been worth it.

Hydrocarbon-based life is no free ride, either, and has its own burden of corruption and other externalities it can point to over the last century and a half of its development since Edwin Drake punched the first well into Titusville, PA.

———-” The EWEA report notes that offshore wind has been one of the fastest growing maritime industries in Europe, but continued growth will require moving into deeper water – that is, water depths greater than 50 meters. “———

With wind turbines mounted on ships or barges, it won’t matter how deep the water is where they are sited—-as opposed to fixed position platforms.

Japan is right now working on installing floating platform wind turbine arrays just off the coast of Fukushima(to total 1.2 Gigawatts eventually I think) to replace the output of the nuclear reactors crippled in the earthquake and tsunami disaster.

Combine the shipboard wind array with the capacity to produce and store Hydrogen gas by electrolysis or produce CH4(methane, natural gas) using the Sabatier reaction and there is no need for long distance electrical connections. Energy can be stored on shipboard and moved to point of use when and as needed.

Producing methane using waste CO2 is probably easier, cheaper and requires less handling and expense than H2 production, and can be used directly in catalytic electrolyte fuel cells for direct production of electricity the same as H2.

The Sabatier reaction can be scaled to any size needed and has been used on the International Space Station for several years to conserve water and generate O2.

I don’t see any problems that can’t be overcome with existing technology that is already in use.

The biggest clue to the real problem is the big picture overview that Pete uses between the Danish and the German systems . The former resembles a giant battery combining hydro resources with the wind power the Germans have no such resource ( as was pointed out by ABB and Siemens engineers many years ago but the pols did not want to listen. )

The arguments of comparison of one type of renewable source against another are purely spurious without understanding the engineering best practice parameters required to really make them work , such as what would solar do with ‘Smart devices and intelligent DC power that would consume 1/5th the energy used and better efficiency by a large factor.

I do however sympathize with the Green is wonderful ( at any cost ) critique and remember an image map that was above my desk as a young grad engineering student in Africa

Rocky Mountain Institute has debunked the false claims persistently made on the pages of Forbes.com and elsewhere:

“Myth #1: Germany’s turn back to coal

An efficient new German coal plant begun in 2006, with fast ramp rates to complement variable renewables, was widely but wrongly heralded on its commissioning in 2012 (Europe’s only new coal plant that year) as signaling Germany’s post-Fukushima turn back to coal—not mentioning that it replaced a larger amount of dirtier and far less efficient coal capacity that was shut down. Moreover, replacing old 35-to-38-percent-efficient coal units with modern 46-percent-efficient ones, like some of the 5.3 GW likely to come online this year, would save a fifth of their coal even if net capacity didn’t change. And though capacity may fluctuate for a few years, the German Energy Agency expects 11.3 GW of coal capacity to be added and 18.5 GW closed by 2020—a net decrease of at least 7.2 GW.

In fact, as explained here and here, Germany has begun no new coal plants since Fukushima, coal-fired generation will decline even more than capacity, lignite has no future, and any of the coal plants planned long ago that are completed—offsetting retiring units—are likely to lose money, just as existing ones do now. Another instance in Hamburg reinforces these points. Yet claims continue to propagate that “Germany alone is building 25 coal-fired plants” (20 of 29 originally proposed have already been stopped, 5–6 more shelved) and that “it has now become very, very cheap to burn coal and as a result, there’s a new coal boom in Europe” (nearly all in Britain and Spain), while renewables are “helping to continue the economic collapse of Germany” (Europe’s strongest economy).